Buddy I really agree with you on this point. Why should some one use thir
riduial vision when perhaps they may find a better aproch to not usi it at
all.
From: Riz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Buddy Brannan" <buddy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 1:36 AM
Subject: [bct] Re: Job posting

I see a philosophical discussion impending.

I found the following paragraph in the job posting to be interesting:

This position involves extensive work with students and adults with low
vision and the ability to identify and implement opportunities for
enhancing use of residual vision will be important to the successful
candidate.

So, is it just me, or wouldn't it be more important to find solutions
and techniques that would be efficient rather than to find those that
maximize the use of residual vision? It seems to me that too often,
people who have some residual vision are taught, even expected, to
use that vision, even where not using it, or using another nonvisual
technique, might be more efficient or even safer. I've seen people
with some usable vision who have been taught, or have taught
themselves, that it's better to use vision than it is to be blind and
use blindness techniques. For instance, I've seen people cooking,
who, in order to judge the progress of their meals, have had to lean
so far over to see the contents of the pan that they were in danger
of catching their hair on fire. We won't even get into slow and
laborious use of large print where braille or speech would be more
efficient.

Granted, there are certainly times where visual techniques would be
more efficient, but wouldn't the requirement at the beginning of the
description to evaluate students and work/school situations have
sufficed without the additional requirement of figuring out how to
maximize use of residual vision?